Re: Open access to research worth � 1.5bn a year

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

I did find one peer-reviewed study on the impact of open access on
citation rate: "Publishing Online-Only Peer-Reviewed Biomedical
Literature: Three Years of Citation, Author Perception, and Usage
Experience," by Kent Anderson and his colleagues.

It is a study of online-only vs. print articles in the journal Pediatrics.
It does not find the same citation advantage for online publications
claimed by Harnad and his colleagues.

See http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-03/anderson.html

Peter Banks
Acting Vice President for Publications/Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> pbanks@diabetes.org 09/27/05 7:37 PM >>>

It is not a silly question. Dr. Harnad and his colleagues address it in
their paper "Citation Impact of Open Access Articles vs. Articles
available only through subscription ("Toll-Access")"
<http://citebase.eprints.org/isi_study/> They do say they have factored
out self-citation.

Whether the issue of self-citation or any other aspect of this work is
convincing is another matter. Although Peter Suber recently claimed (in a
letter to the Washington Times) that "Study after study has shown that
free online access increases the impact of research literature, as
measured by citations, 50 percent to 250 percent," I am not sure what
"study after study" refers to, though is clearly is a reference to
Harnad's work.

Dr. Harnad has provided one other refererence
<http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/graphes/EtudeImpact.htm>, so perhaps
"study after study" means literally that: two studies. Or maybe there are
more, but I can't find references. Neither of the studies above appears to
have been peer reviewed or published other than by preprint. Indeed, in
the first study, the authors make this disclaimer: "Warning: The data
presented here are preliminary unrefereed results that are still being
analyzed and corrected (we welcome any suggestions or questions). This is
not yet the "definitive" version of our findings. Please do not cite them
without consultation with the authors."

I would encourage interested parties to take the authors up on their
invitation for (much needed, in my view) peer review.

Peter Banks
American Diabetes Association